Mitch McConnell’s message to the White House after Antonin Scalia’s death on Saturday seemed unequivocal: Don’t even bother sending a Supreme Court nominee to Congress, we won’t act on it.

But on Tuesday, some Republicans were signaling they’re open to at least holding hearings, if not allowing a confirmation vote.

Story Continued Below

In an interview on Tuesday afternoon Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin bristled at the suggestion that his party would completely ignore a nomination: “It’s amazing how many words are being put in everybody’s mouth.”

“I don't know how things would play out. However it plays out I will fulfill my constitutional role in voting” on the nomination, said Johnson, one of the most vulnerable Republicans this fall. “I don't think anybody said we are not going to do anything. They are going to wait to see what the next step is.”

Earlier on Tuesday, Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, whose panel would evaluate any potential Obama pick, said he wouldn't rule out holding hearings. Johnson and other Republicans hastened to add, however, that even though hearings are a possibility, winning enough GOP votes to actually approve an Obama nominee would be very difficult.

Republicans have a difficult needle to thread, particularly for those up for reelection this fall in more liberal states. With all but two GOP senators thus far backing McConnell's view that no Obama nominee should be approved before the election, Republicans want to avoid being tagged as obstructionist by Senate Democrats eager to score points in a year when control of the chamber is up for grabs.

Essentially, the GOP message is this: We respect Obama's decision to make a nomination, even though that appointee stands no chance of being confirmed. It's a more nuanced view than an outright blockade, and suggests that the optics of barring a Supreme Court nominee from even a courtesy hearing are making some Republicans queasy.

Democrats, meanwhile, predict McConnell will fold.

"The next step in this process will be for Senator McConnell to back down and give President Obama’s nominee a hearing and a floor vote. That’s a simple reality," said Adam Jentleson, a top aide to Minority Leader Harry Reid.

Republicans aren't going there yet. When asked if a confirmation hearing is a possibility, McConnell’s office declined to expand upon the GOP leader’s Saturday statement that the “vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.” But the GOP leader is happy to hit Reid for past efforts working against Supreme Court nominees.

“Sen. Reid was the first Democrat Leader in the history of the United States to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee, just as President Obama and VP Biden were the first ever in their positions to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee. So it’s always quaint to hear their staff feign displeasure now," said Don Stewart, a spokesman for McConnell.

Still, beyond Grassley, several other rank and file senators said it was reasonable to begin the process on a Supreme Court nomination even if the GOP-controlled Senate will never confirm a candidate for the job.

"The president has the right to nominate a Supreme Court justice, and the Constitution gives the Senate the power to decide whether to confirm the nominee,” said Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.). Corker has taken multiple votes in the past to confirm top Obama nominees, but has voted against his two Supreme Court justices and agrees with calls to delay a vote on this nomination.

Republicans' position points to a central tenet of their reelection campaign: Under McConnell's direction they've built a record of stability. And though it hasn't come with a lot of flash, the GOP's 14 months in charge has not gifted Democrats with a shutdown or default that could drive voters away from the GOP.

But some in the GOP ranks worry that foundation could crumble if the party gets embroiled in a fight over obstruction after devoting so much effort to convincing voters that the Senate is "back to work."

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), a member of the Judiciary Committee, said on Tuesday that the rush to dismiss any pick threatens to undermine GOP messaging.

“Maybe the president recognizes that he’s out of step with the American people, that the American people kind of liked the composition of the Supreme Court, so he puts forth somebody who has identical resume and capabilities of Justice Scalia,” Tillis said on local radio. “That’s unlikely to happen, but I think we fall into the trap — if we just simply say sight unseen — we fall into the trap of being obstructionist.”

Indeed, Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) emphasized in his Monday statement backing McConnell that Obama is well within his rights to choose a nominee. This year, Toomey has made willingness to fight for his state's lower level lifetime judicial appointees a major point of his reelection campaign, but that goodwill toward the Obama administration does not extend to the Supreme Court.

Toomey's political opponents predicted his position on Supreme Court nominees will contribute to his downfall at the ballot box in a state that twice voted to elect Obama.

“Pennsylvania’s blue streak has gotten even brighter blue in recent cycles,” Katie McGinty, the preferred Democrat to take on Toomey in D.C. circles, said in an interview on Tuesday. Toomey's "just saying: ‘Meh, I don’t think I’ll have time.’ That doesn’t fly.”

A spokesman for Toomey shot back: “Pat Toomey has demonstrated a clear record of bipartisanship when it comes to approving judges — Katie McGinty has never demonstrated any interest in working across the aisle about anything.”

Obama wouldn't predict he'd appoint a moderate nominee on Tuesday, but Democrats are urging the president to play hardball on the nomination and force Republicans to either swallow a consensus pick or tag senators like Toomey with bad votes so close to election season.

Rather than delivering a progressive nominee on Capitol Hill that could be more easily rejected on ideological grounds, Senate Democrats are clamoring for Obama to give Senate Republicans a nominee that they will struggle to blockade.

“My advice to the president would be … ‘Why don’t you nominate someone who’s terrific, just a terrific nominee?’” said Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), normally not among the Senate’s chief partisans. “It’s the right thing to do, and I think it puts the pressure on Republicans.”

But if Republicans are feeling pressure, it’s only about how their position is being interpreted by the media. Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the most senior Republican in the chamber, said on NPR on Tuesday it would “wonderful” if there was a nominee that could win confirmation and Sri Srinivasan, a moderate pick getting lots of speculation, is a “fine person.” Yet, he quickly added that’s not a break with McConnell.

“I could live with anything, but honestly I believe Mitch McConnell is right on this issue,” Hatch said.

McConnell isn’t just right on the issue, but also the politics, Republicans insisted on Tuesday. Strategists and aides said that people animated by judicial issues are already entrenched partisans and can’t have their votes swayed, so McConnell’s play is unlikely to turn off swing voters.

And Republicans predicted there’s a significant chance that Democrats could overplay their hand and shutdown the entire legislative process. A senior Democratic aide said there’s been no decision on whether to do that, although the aide signaled that was unlikely.

Finally, Republicans up for reelection said that their stance is reasonable and will be respected by voters. Johnson’s Democrat opponent, former Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), blasted Johnson’s “irresponsible view that we’re better off with a deadlocked Supreme Court for over a year” in an emailed statement to POLITICO on Tuesday.

But in the interview, Johnson insisted that Feingold is reading his state all wrong.

“My position is eminently reasonable. Not only reasonable, it shows my confidence in the American people,” Johnson said. "Let the voters of Wisconsin decide."